Strict Bind usability

[Ondrej Zajicek]

On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 10:50:18PM +0100, Sebastian Hahn wrote:
> Hi list,
> 
> I've been using strict bind for bgp, but there might be a lack in my understanding or I have a proposal for a new feature.
> Strict bind seems to be a bit more restrictive than I'd like (and than I think it is necessary):
> 
> I would like to use dynamic bgp (using a range for neighbour) with
> auto-configured LL IPv6 adresses. This doesn't work, of course, if I need
> to statically configure the source address, which I am forced to with the
> strict bind option. I am wondering, is this restriction really needed?

Hi

You are right, this is something that could be easily changed. Will look at it.


> In addition, it would be great if a strict bind option could be added for the babel protocol.

Babel (and OSPF, RIP) already uses one socket per interface. Such socket
is not bound to specific IP address using bind(), but is bound to the
specific interface using setsockopt(SO_BINDTODEVICE), at least in Linux.

We cannot use bind() with local IP address for multicast sockets, as they
would reject multicast packets (as they have different dst address as one
the socket is bound).

Anyway, it should not be necessary. AFAIK, setups that require strict
bind in BGP should work out of the box in Babel. Or what specific setup
does not work for you?


> Also let me say Thanks for bird, it's a pleasure to use!

Thanks!

-- 
Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo

Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santiago at crfreenet.org)
"To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."